Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
COMPARATIVE ENERGY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSES BETWEEN SMALL- AND LARGE-SCALE SUGARCANE PRODUCTION IN MAURITIUS
KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Energy Technology, Energy and Climate Studies, ECS. Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico.
2013 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

This study uses energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances to evaluate how the scale of sugarcane cultivation affects the performance of a sugarcane bioenergy system generating exportable electricity from bagasse. Small-, medium-, large- and miller-planter systems, with cane field areas of less than 10 ha, 10 – 42 ha, 42 – 2000 ha, more than 2000 ha respectively, were modelled. Each of them also has different combinations of manual and mechanical agricultural operations, resulting in different cane yields.

Miller-planter system (fully mechanised) performs best with energy yield ratio of 10.99, GHG emissions in bagasse electricity of 0.0633 kg CO2eq/kWh and avoided life cycle GHG emissions of 82.07% when replacing electricity from coal, whereas small-planter system (fully manual) has the worst performance with energy yield ratio of 6.82, GHG emissions in bagasse electricity of 0.0881 kg CO2eq/kWh and avoided life cycle GHG emissions of 75.03% when substituting electricity from coal.

Sensitivity analyses show that relative performances of all sugarcane planter systems both in terms of energy and GHG emissions are not significantly affected by variations in bagasse allocation factor, in sugarcane yield and in fertiliser input (the most energy-intensive and GHG-emitting component). Moreover, they confirm miller-planter system as the overall best performer and indicate that increasing small-planters’ cane yield is the critical measure to improve their energy analysis performance. In terms of the nature of agricultural operations, mechanical operations do not necessarily require more input energy than their manual counterparts, contrary to common belief. This is the case for fertilisation, irrigation and cane loading. Fully mechanised sugarcane production at miller-planter scale is therefore strongly encouraged.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. , 109 p.
Keyword [en]
energy analysis, greenhouse gas analysis, sugarcane agriculture, cultivation scale, Mauritius, smallholders, millers, mechanical and manual operations, sugarcane bioenergy system
National Category
Bioenergy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-133447OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-133447DiVA: diva2:661368
External cooperation
Stockholm Environment Institute
Subject / course
Energy and Climate Studies
Presentation
2013-10-01, Stockholm Environment Institute, Kräftriket 2b, Stockholm, 13:30 (English)
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2013-12-20 Created: 2013-11-03 Last updated: 2013-12-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(2146 kB)909 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 2146 kBChecksum SHA-512
badb6de2f88312c5a85140004bd0edb1d5d4ae1130e501a58ab235e654b35454b6edfb0e066a42e1d995516ad011c17b1627d2906ae069ddce30e63b6de81fe7
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Energy and Climate Studies, ECS
Bioenergy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 909 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 356 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf